15/02/2018 Question Time

Tonight, we are in Yeovil

and welcome to Question Time.

And we are actually not

precisely in Yeovil.

We are in the Fleet Air Arm

Museum at Yeovilton,

which is just outside Yeovil.

On our panel tonight,

the former Secretary of State

for Northern Ireland,

who was a member of

the European Parliament,

then voted for Brexit,

and is a Conservative MP,

Theresa Villiers.

David Lammy, Labour MP for the same

London constituency for 18 years,

a minister in both Blair

and the Brown governments.

The managing director of the frozen

food company Iceland,

which currently recently became

the first big retailer in Britain

to pledge to get rid of plastic

packaging within five years,

Richard Walker.

And the economist, writer,

campaigner, who used to work

for the charity Save the Children,

Faiza Shaheen.

And the former Sunday Times

journalist who became

David Cameron's head of policy,

now in the House of Lords,

Camilla Cavendish.

Thank you very much.

And remember, as always,

from home you can argue these issues

using #BBCQT on Twitter

and on Facebook.

Let's have our first question,

which comes from Victoria McGregor.

Would you still make

a donation to Oxfam?

David Lammy.

Yes.

Just about.

And that's because there is so much

to do across the world,

and Oxfam and a number of aid

agencies have been leading the way.

There are 130 million young

girls across the world

who are not being educated.

In our own country, we are pledged

to get 11 million of those young

girls educated by 2020.

I think of Ebola, and diseases

across the world like malaria,

which we could overcome,

and the wonderful work that

taxpayers in this country

have contributed to.

So I know that there is a debate

about getting rid of aid entirely.

It's not one I agree with.

Having said that, this is a moment

for the aid agencies to step up

and understand why the public

are so upset.

The old-fashioned idea,

it seems to me, of someone

flying in from Holland,

on this occasion, to Haiti,

gap year kids, working

and doing good to the poor,

has got to end.

I've been critical of the way

in which Africa and development aid

is sometimes portrayed

as if immigrants from those

countries don't give three

times more, actually,

sent back in remittances,

than the aid agencies or taxpayers.

So there's a lot that's got

to change and this is a moment

in which I hope that happens.

But I'd also say this one point,

that in the end we, in this country

and other Western countries,

also have to remember the role

we played in the carve up

of the African continent,

the Indian continent,

our imperious and colonialist past,

that means whilst we need reform

in aid it would be absolutely

objectionable for this country

to withdraw from its international

obligations to the very

poorest in the world.

APPLAUSE

Of course, the question arises

from the 2011 cover-up,

as Oxfam was accused of their staff

in Haiti using prostitutes.

Faiza Shaheen, what do you think?

What we've heard over the last week

is incredibly disappointing.

I hear it when people

say that "I'm not sure

"if I could give money any more".

The thing is of course...

And it's absolutely right

that those in senior positions

and those involved should

consider their positions.

But the big thing is that despicable

people cannot stop good people

from doing good work,

and doing good deeds.

This is humanitarian work.

We are humans.

We need to retain that,

we need to fight for that.

I totally agree that the development

agencies need to do a lot more.

For the last few months

we have heard a lot

about the abuse of power.

We've heard about it in Hollywood,

we've heard about it in Parliament

and we've heard about it in sports.

And this is just another place where

that societal problem is clear,

that when you give people too much

power, they can abuse that.

Not always, of course,

but they can abuse that.

So we need to do a lot more

on the safeguards and we need to do

a lot more to make sure that some

of what happened in terms of not

being known that this guy managed

to get another job afterwards,

that that can't happen again.

And that's the sort of thing we need

to make sure they do now.

So what I would say

to you is if Oxfam and other

development agencies can't show

that they are making that

difference, that they are shifting

their funds and shifting the way

that they are doing things,

then that's the point

at which you say, "OK,

they haven't changed their ways".

Can I just put to you a quotation

from the Oxfam staff training manual

and ask you whether you think this

is a proper or adequate

answer to this?

It was written in 2006 and it

says, "We haven't banned

"the use of prostitutes

but we strongly discourage it".

Is that enough?

No.

I don't think that's enough.

What do you think

they should be saying?

Well, look, it just shouldn't have

happened, they shouldn't

be using prostitutes.

Look, I worked for Save the Children

for just 18 months and the issues

that are coming out here of quite

macho environments are things that

of course are there in the sector.

And I saw them.

And there was a bigger issue,

and I completely support

the use of foreign aid,

and we need to think about...

I was there when the Ebola outbreak

happened, and you think about people

that go there and help people.

They are heroes, often.

And we often find that

if we had not have made those

interventions at that time,

can you imagine what would have

happened if that disease

had spread further?

So it's really worth

that investment.

But there's a lot of change

that does need to happen

within the development sector

and this is the time to do it.

The person in blue that

had their hand up.

I'm a charity worker myself,

and whilst there is always

going to be bad apples in any

organisation and safeguarding

is about minimising the risk,

isn't this a society issue?

Why are we starting...

I know there's an issue with Oxfam

and we can start cherrypicking,

but this is an issue

with all of our societies.

OK, and the person

with their hand up.

Keep your hand up

if you want to speak.

Yes, you.

I work with a couple of West Country

charities that have been

through a difficult period recently,

and one of the problems

is that the Charity Commission

is a toothless regulator.

And what Oxfam shows

is that it is a toothless regulator,

because it looked at this problem

a while ago and moved away

without finding the real issue.

And it didn't dig to find

out what was going on.

No, and it doesn't.

And if we're not dealing with...

If the Charity Commission is not

focused on preventing

financing foreign terrorism,

which is what the government have

tasked it to look at,

it ignores virtually everything else

until it hits the papers.

Richard Walker.

I mean, look, what happened

was beyond reprehensible.

To exploit the most vulnerable

in some of the most vulnerable

areas in the world.

And I hope it serves as a wake-up

call for the sector.

And now the spotlight is on,

I'm sure more will come out.

But from any organisation's point

of view, in business

or in the charitable sector,

you need to ensure that positions

of power are not abused,

and that people who have been abused

can be facilitated to come

forward and speak up.

So I would argue that Oxfam urgently

need to step up and show leadership,

because I'm really worried

about the future of this

amazing organisation

which is being poisoned

by a few people.

Would you still make a donation?

I would, yes.

Because to not make that

donation is almost to doubly

hurt those people that

need our help the most.

APPLAUSE

Camilla Cavendish.

So, I don't think this is a debate,

or should be a debate

about shutting down aid.

I think this is a debate

about accountability.

And I agree.

We can't just single out Oxfam.

There are clearly issues,

unfortunately, emerging

across the board.

But the truth is that I think

if I was running Oxfam,

and I was an aid worker a long time

ago and I know how chaotic

it is and that there are great

people working on the front line,

and I know how these things,

I can imagine how these

things can go wrong.

If I had been running Oxfam,

I would have shut down

that operation in Haiti.

I would have fired that guy,

rather than paying him off

so he would get a job somewhere else

and I would have put my hands up.

That wouldn't have shut

down the help to Haiti.

All that would have meant was that

other agencies who were already

there would have moved in.

But the truth is that I am very

uncomfortable with a big

organisation covering things up,

passing on monstrous employees

with appalling behaviour.

And by the way, it's only two years

ago since Oxfam and other charities

Something has gone wrong in that

organisation, I'm sorry to say.

And I think this is a deep

issue of accountability.

I've not actually donated

to Oxfam myself for years.

I donate to Medecins Sans Frontieres

and smaller charities where I feel

I really know the money's

going to the front line.

But that's a personal decision.

But I don't think it's OK

for institutions to say that

because their mission is to help

the vulnerable they

are not accountable.

That, to me, is wrong and we need

to do something about it.

APPLAUSE

The speaker at the back said

the Charities Commission wasn't

doing its job either because it

didn't pick up on this and didn't

investigate it properly

and they are the watchdog.

I think that's a very

interesting issue.

I know some of the work

of the Charities Commission,

which actually has been very

effective.

I think you were talking

about terrorism and that aspect.

Maybe they have

focused on that more.

I think regulators always

have a difficult job.

I'm sure more should be done.

But you know what?

Oxfam shouldn't have let this

happen in the first place.

That's kind of...

Theresa Villiers.

It is repellent that people

who were there to help vulnerable

people ended up exploiting them.

So I think for the moment,

if we are making a donation,

I would prefer to give to

a different aid charity than Oxfam

until Oxfam can prove it

has cleaned up its act.

I agree with the speaker at the back

who said that unfortunately people

who abuse power are present

in all sectors of society.

The crucial thing now is for the aid

sector as a whole to make sure

they have the most robust possible

safeguarding mechanisms so that

whistle-blowers can come forward,

victims can come forward,

and so this type of abuse

is detected at an early stage

and stopped in its tracks.

But I am convinced that we should

continue, as individuals

and as taxpayers, to donate

to development aid.

It is crucial, not only just

for the moral reasons of helping

some of the poorest and most

disadvantaged in the world,

but it is also crucial I think

for our interests as a nation.

I take as an example the fact that

UK taxpayers' aid has supported

almost 65 million people to have

access to clean water

and health care.

Now that kind of project

is essential in tackling

antimicrobial resistance.

And you support the 0.7% of GDP

going to aid, do you?

I do.

Which many people criticise

on the grounds that it's

a lot of money and could

be used elsewhere.

Unequivocal support you have for it?

I support the 0.7% target.

It is a lot of money but there

is a moral case to do this.

But there are also very sensible,

practical reasons why

it is in the interests

of the United Kingdom

to spend this money.

Camilla, do you agree?

I don't support the 0.7% target.

Not because I don't think that aid

is important or because I don't

think we have done some great things

as a country, but because when you

set a target like that

and you set it in stone,

it becomes an enormous incentive

for people to spend money

without thinking it through.

And that's why I have never actually

supported that target.

And many years ago I started

writing about Ethiopia,

which is a huge recipient of British

aid, where the government

was using aid to silence dissidents.

And I wrote, with the help

of Human Rights Watch,

and I couldn't get the government

to talk to me and I couldn't get

the agencies to talk to me

because they had too much invested,

and they had essentially too

much vested interest

in continuing the flow of money.

Did you say this to David Cameron

when you were working for him,

in the policy unit?

For many years I have

said that to him.

And he took no notice.

He believes, I am sure

he still does and he did then,

absolutely passionately in aid.

He believes in helping

the most vulnerable.

That is great.

What I object to and what I worry

about is when you set a target

in stone you set create a strange

set of incentives.

You, sir.

I run a charity.

The Charities Commission

has been given dozens

of new powers by the government

to investigate charities.

It just isn't using them because it

doesn't have the resources to do so.

Why has it taken a national

scandal for them finally

to investigate Oxfam?

And your answer to that is?

They are short of resources.

The woman there on the left.

Andrew Mitchell was the Secretary

of State when this scandal took

place and he said that the reason

he didn't know about it is because

Oxfam described it as misconduct,

and the officials at DfID

took it no further.

So surely there is

culpability there.

If something came through my desk

that said "misconduct",

my first question would be,

"What kind of misconduct"?

They didn't ask the question.

Right, he was a minister in your

party's government, what do you say?

Oxfam should have described the type

of misconduct that it was.

But she says if you get a thing

on your paper saying

"misconduct" you investigate.

You don't just say,

"Oh, misconduct".

Well, I mean, certainly

in hindsight they should have

asked more questions.

But the real culpability

here is with Oxfam for not

disclosing the nature

of what happened.

Any more points for anyone,

otherwise I will go

on to the next question.

Yes, you sir.

Will all these people that's been

caught now be blacklisted and stop

from working within charities?

In the future?

David Lammy?

God I hope so.

I mean look, the point,

I think the point is about power.

De facto.

If you are coming from Britain

to any of these countries, you have

considerable power.

You land in those countries,

you see the jeeps

that people go around in.

The salaries they get

a significantly

higher than local people.

What we've got to do

is we've got to bend

towards the south.

You need local workers,

local community, you've got

to lift them up.

Far more than Westerners arriving.

Of course they've got to be sacked.

Let me just say,

Oxfam have got to move

rapidly to show they have heard.

There has got to be more people

looking at their positions and

stepping aside.

Fresh people have got

to arrive, they've got to be

southern -based,

connected to the ground.

To really demonstrate

they've got it.

And lots and lots of other

agencies have to follow that

as well.

When taxpayers are funding Oxfam,

£32 million, it does require

greater scrutiny.

That's why it is right that

ministers are asking

questions about what that misconduct

was and the charity commission

isn't just a toothless regulator.

Absolutely.

OK.

Right, before we go

onto next question...

Question Time next Thursday

comes from Uttoxeter.

And the week after

that from Blackpool.

Details of how to get to Uttoxeter

or Blackpool if you want

to come to the programme

are on the screen.

I will as ever give them at the end.

I'll take this question now please

from Ruth Binney, please.

If biscuits and other

highly processed

foods are damaging the nation's

health, isn't it time for them to be

taxed?

I think this is based

on a report today.

The French government saying

people who use highly

processed foods are more

likely to get cancer.

Well, Iceland...

Highly processed foods and biscuits.

I picked a good week to come on.

You did.

75 chicken nuggets for £3.

Actually...

You answer the question.

Something that has been annoying me

about the press today is the chicken

nuggets.

It's been used as an example

of an ultra-processed food.

Our chicken nuggets

are made from 100% chicken.

Come on!

And breadcrumbs.

There is an important point here.

What did you say your

company was called?

What is wrong with that

other than snobbery?

OK.

Shall I go down the rest

of the list or not?

24 cans of Pepsi for £6.50.

42 packets...

I don't know why this matters

because you are here to

answer the general question.

And you know the business well.

Highly processed foods

are damaging health.

Is it time for them to be taxed?

Look, I think it's ultimately,

it comes down to a balanced diet.

I recognise that retailers

have a responsibility to provide

an option of choices.

So if you want to have a processed

meal, retailers need to

ensure that is high-quality

to the best possible standards

at the best possible price.

If you want to do some scratch

cooking and buy chicken

and vegetables and fresh fruit,

which you can do from our store,

we're not all frozen.

Then, you know, that's fine as well.

I think it's incumbent

on the retailers to

give customers that choice.

I don't think that we can

really tax our way

to solving this situation.

But I think we can all do better.

There are regulations

that have come in

for example, such as an sugar.

Don't tell anyone

because I'm hoping our

customers won't notice, but we've

taken out over the last year 10%

sugar.

Do you accept in principle highly

processed foods are less good

for you than fresh food?

And this report by the

French doctor saying

you're more likely to get cancer,

are you disturbed by that or do you

reject that argument?

I'm not disturbed

by it and I think the

researchers themselves have said

more research needs to be done.

Every week there is a food scare

and it may be excessive alcohol

consumption or excessive

fat or excessive sugar.

And of course if you eat one

thing always it will be

bad for you.

The fundamental point

here is it's about balance and

choice.

You know, retailers have got to work

damn hard to make sure

products are as good quality

as we can make them.

Camilla Cavendish.

Well I was the author of the sugar

tax on fizzy drinks.

Which is coming in next year.

So I'm regarded as a health fascist

and deeply unpopular

with many sections of the community.

Are you unpopular with Iceland?

Well I don't know

because by the sound of

it...

You can buy quinoa,

asparagus spears, you know.

Great, I live on asparagus

spears, that's all I eat.

Come on, back to the sugar.

Look, what I discovered,

so the evidence

on fizzy drinks is terrible.

Teenagers in this country drink

enormous amounts of it.

Richard's point about

moderation is right but

the fact is we don't seem very good,

in ourselves, to being moderate.

We wanted to bring in a tax to make

drinks more expensive.

It was an onslaught

from the companies.

Every company said

they couldn't possibly

reformulate, it would be impossible

to change their ingredients,

impossible to take the sugar out.

Here we are three months before

the tax comes in and every single

company except one has

already reformulated

its drink to avoid

the

tax.

Which I think is a huge success.

And I do actually think, sadly,

I would much rather work with

business to do these things

but sometimes you really need to put

pressure on because it is very

difficult for consumers to know what

on earth we are supposed to buy.

Making things more expensive does

change people's behaviour in a way

I'm afraid all the leaflets we've

read over the years, for the

newspaper article fundamentally...

You talk about sugar, do you think

all processed foods, they were

saying today the longer

the list of things that make

up the food the more

likely it is to be highly processed.

Do think they should be taxed?

This is what I've read.

I think it's very difficult

having done this sugar tax

which is relatively easy to tax

sugar in a drink, because it's quite

easy to isolate the sugar.

I think it would be

incredible difficult to

tax individual ingredients which is

actually why the government is

trying to work with businesses like

Richard's to do something slightly

more sophisticated.

It's obviously an issue

about the way in which

corporations and food businesses

and behave when they are given these

regulations and there's obviously

more we can do on that front.

There's obviously the other side

of this equation which is people's

pockets.

Part of the reason they will go

to Iceland and to certain

stores is because they're cheaper

and they'll buy things that are

perhaps more processed and £1 for

chicken nuggets or whatever it is.

Which my husband

quite likes actually.

It's the way in which people

make their money work.

And we had a decade

of such low wage growth

in this country.

We haven't had a decade of this kind

of wage growth for over 200 years.

People are really feeling

the squeeze in terms

of how much money

they have left over.

Also time restraints as well.

So people working more hours,

trying to make those ends meet.

And that's where these

sorts of short cuts and

these kinds of foods become

a possibility in which to make it

work, make everyday work.

So we don't want to

punish those people.

We want to do something on both

sides of those equations.

You want to give people

more money, make sure

they have jobs that pay them well,

and we want to make sure that they

can buy good produce.

You know, there's some

places you live, and

there's like food deserts.

It's like hard to get

good, fresh produce in

your neighbourhood, so we need to do

something on both sides.

Ruth Binney, you asked

the question, what

do you think?

I'm particularly concerned

about what I would call

the food extras.

The biscuits, the crisps,

the things that aren't

really nutritionally valuable.

But I would also go

further if I was going

to have a tax on them.

I would actually ring

fence that tax money

for the NHS.

All right, so...

APPLAUSE I'll come to you.

Who else would like to talk?

You all obviously go shopping.

Yes, the woman there

in the centre, what do you think?

Would you like to see

a tax on processed

foods?

Well I hate to use a pun,

but it sounds like all stick and no

carrot here.

Instead of making processed

food more expensive, why

not make healthy food cheaper?

Because it's actually

really expensive...

APPLAUSE

To go shopping.

To buy all of the healthy

ingredients, the gentleman

said, to make your food

from scratch, it adds up.

Ask Jamie Oliver, he says

he's got those cheap

books, but my God, it adds up, it's

very expensive to cook from scratch.

How do you find yourself buying,

do you buy a lot of processed

food?

We try, we do try, I've got two

children, so we try to eat

healthily and we try to cook

from scratch as much as possible.

But as Faiza said,

my husband and I work

full-time, I'm a teacher

and my husband's in the Navy.

It's not always

possible to go to the

supermarket, gather up

all those ingredients,

pay for it all at once.

It's actually really expensive

to make one meal as opposed

as opposed to grabbing,

I don't know, just a takeaway or

something like that.

The man there.

You agree with her?

On making fresh food

is cheaper, you can go

into Asda and they've got things

like raspberries £2 upon it, or two

for £3.

Why can't they just

make one punnet £1.50?

Because they go off,

things go off really quick.

The volume is too big?

Yes.

I don't think we want

to get into retail

arguments necessarily.

Why not?

Theresa Villiers.

Well, the trouble with taxes

on food is the people

they hit in the pocket are people

on the lowest incomes.

So I'm not convinced

we should take this step.

I do, though, believe

it is vital for the food

industry to do more

to

reduce sugar content.

I'm somewhat sceptical

about this particular

study.

It seems they only got people

to write out what they ate for two

days.

It seems quite a big step to draw

the conclusions they have but

there is no doubt that

being overweight is one of the most

important preventable

causes of cancer.

So the food industry and government

and society as a whole,

we need a strong public health

campaign to educate people and

support them in trying

to eat more healthily,

because that is the best way

to prevent themselves from

getting cancer.

OK, the person up there

on the gangway, yes.

Yes, you.

Why do we always come back to this

thing about if you put prices of

these processed and sugary goods

up its always the lowest paid people

that will suffer?

Why does anybody need

to give their children cans of

Coke?

You're not going to die

if you don't have a can of Coke.

There is water, there's

much less fizzy,

sweet drinks about, and cheaper.

OK.

The woman there.

Perhaps we should look

at the cause and go back to the

syllabus of home economics at school

and teach people, teach children,

how to cook properly from scratch.

We used to do it when I went

to school and now they have to put a

topping on a pizza that

they bought in a shop.

APPLAUSE David Lammy.

I think we've really got

to keep in mind when we're

talking about taxes, families

where both couples are working.

And finishing work

at five, six o'clock

in the evening.

Like her family.

We've got to keep in mind single

mums, we've got to keep in mind

those on zero-hour contracts.

And so the fact is that

processed food is a way

of life.

It seems to me the starting

point is the regulation.

Don't underestimate

the power, sorry, big

supermarkets in this country.

Don't underestimate

how governments can

defer, often, the debate

around labelling.

Too much fat, too much sugar,

too much salt in a lot of

this food.

You've got to get the regulation

first before you start to

tax people because of the

circumstances in which they live, it

seems to me.

Do you feel unregulated?

Is it right saying you have

the power, not the government?

I'm broadly in favour,

you know, of regulation

coming in, so long

as

it's a level playing field

and the industry can act together.

I think the lady over

there made a really

valid point on home

economics and education.

That must play a role as well.

You know, if...

Why do we always blame

the schools for what in

the end is a supermarket problem?

Leave the teachers out of it.

Let us not demonise

a ready meal because if

it's good quality and,

you know, you don't

have much time, what is

the

problem?

Can I explain one thing?

We'll come to you.

The sugar tax on drinks was not

a tax on customers, it's a

tax on manufacturers.

And the whole point

of it was to get manufacturers

to change the ingredients

in the product.

So it comes...

They've cut down

the amount of sugars.

That's what would work best.

So nobody's paying this

tax, you're saying?

If you can actually

get manufacturers

to stop putting junk,

because it's cheaper for them,

into their products.

But Coca-Cola as a result of this

is reducing the amount of

Coke and putting the price up.

Coca-Cola are not,

Coca-Cola is the one company

that is not changing

their product as I understand.

And they're putting the price?

I don't know what

they're doing with the

price, but they're not...

They made that the price

up but you will have

other options which will be cheaper.

The woman here.

When I went to postnatal

classes just after having

my babies, a lot of the other

mothers there were saying their

children wouldn't drink water,

they would only drink squash,

and they would only eat biscuits

and wouldn't

eat vegetables.

In my view, the point

about education is really

important, but actually I think it's

educating parents, because once

you've got a child,

even at five or six,

and they've been brought up eating

biscuits and cakes and not

eating vegetables and not

understanding about that side of

things, it's almost too late.

So I'm not convinced

particularly about the

tax, although I like the idea

of it being preventative.

I think are really, really

important thing is to

make sure we have good dedication

of parents and parenting.

OK.

APPLAUSE The man up

there, you were saying?

You need to make distinction

between preprepared food and

processed food.

Which has got blown up there.

- blurred.

You can buy from Iceland

preprepared food that isn't

processed, just need heating.

And then processed

foods, like sausages,

burgers, things like that.

Food that just needs

eating sounds...

Heating!

LAUGHTER

"This food just needs eating"!

The woman there.

I wanted to say the thing

about schools is too easy.

I've got two kids at high school.

They've made chicken

nuggets from scratch.

They've made vegetable

korma from scratch.

They bring them home

and it's delicious.

So it is happening in schools.

Let's move to another question.

Since we are talking

about schools, I'll bring

you in if you'd like to come in.

It's a question from

Michelle Moredue.

Can the ticking time bomb

of mental health and stress

in our schools really be solved

by even more testing?

This is based on this

announcement that schools,

eight and nine-year-olds

are going to have tests

of their tables added

to the tables they already have.

Further from that, the suggestion

from Nick Gibb to bring testing

further down to 12-year-olds,

because it would alleviate

their exam stress further

on in their educational career.

Obviously, the whole thing of stress

in schools is a really

serious, growing issue.

Theresa Villiers, what do you think?

Yeah, I do worry about

the amount of testing

there is in schools,

but it is working.

School standards are rising.

Literacy standards are improving

dramatically in our schools.

We are seeing exam

standards rising as well.

And I believe that, whilst it's

important to keep these

things under review...

I think we should think

very carefully before

introducing new tests.

But, for example with the latest

announcements on times tables,

these are the sort of tests that

have been used successfully

elsewhere in the world.

And I do believe that testing

is helping to deliver very

significant improvements

in our education system.

But are the test scores rising

but actually the application

of the skills are not rising?

I think that's what I find,

as a deputy headteacher,

as somebody who is working

on the front line with education.

They are not actually able then

to apply those skills.

They are not using those

skills in the right frame,

in the right way, when they go out

into the workforce.

You asked a question

about mental stress.

Do you find that

growing in your school?

Absolutely.

Without enough funding

being put in place for those

children to support them.

We are effectively telling

the children that they've failed

at such a young age.

And all that does is degrade them.

We've already got several

generations walking around

having hated school.

APPLAUSE

We mustn't create another

generation of people

that don't enjoy school.

Surely it's our job

to light the fires.

What form does the mental

health and stress take

in your experience as a deputy head?

Well, you've got children

who are fearful of going

into an exam situation.

They are fearful of it,

worried about not passing.

All they are bothered about is

what they get on the test score.

And then it becomes not

about acquiring skills for life.

It becomes about that test score.

So yes, actually the phonics test

did raise the standards.

It raised the standards

in passing a test.

But it didn't actually

impact on reading.

And that's what it is.

Or cultivate a love of reading.

We are going up the

international league tables

on literacy and reading.

It has had an effect.

And how are we doing

on mental health?

Well, we need to do better on mental

health, which is why the government

is committed to a dramatic increase

in funding for mental health care.

All right.

Would you accept that

what is being described by Michelle

is a price that has to be paid

for improvement in the international

table of excellence?

Is stress a natural consequence of

what is being imposed on children?

Of course we should be doing

everything we can to prevent mental

health issues in children.

But it is possible to introduce

new tests in schools without

excessive stress on students.

And it is very important

to recognise the role of testing

in ensuring that children

are getting a decent education

that is crucial for them getting

a good start in life.

The person behind Michelle.

I've been a teacher.

I've also written

exam specifications.

I've been a teacher for 23 years.

I now work in a charity

with people who suffer

with mental health issues.

I understand that assessment

is simply about statistics.

It's simply about so this country

can say to another country,

"Look how good our students are".

This generation are disempowered.

I have three children in their 20s.

They can't remember their maths

because it was something

that was done to them.

They weren't engaged in it at all.

The vocational education,

the BTECs went out.

That was an absolute disaster

because BTECs were brilliant.

They engaged the pupil,

taught them life skills,

gave them interpersonal skills,

great communication skills.

And now we are just back to a simple

test which is testing one form

of intelligence in one way

which suits a certain

group of people.

APPLAUSE

Camilla Cavendish.

Well, I have three children

and the eldest is just

about to do his GCSEs.

And I think, you know I've

been around the policy

world for a long time.

It's not until you have kids that

you see it for what it is.

And what I can't believe

is how little has changed

since I was at school.

And it seems to me that we test

memory, we test short-term memory

and being able to learn

things by rote.

And it is important

to learn your times tables,

but we still test those things

when we are living in a world

where short-term memory is no

longer very important.

And I do think your point

is very interesting

about the application of skills.

We have gone up the league tables.

But I worry when I look at the GCSE

courses about the content of those

courses and the number of keywords

you have to just produce in order

to get a tick in the box.

I think there is something missing.

I wonder whether actually we should

still be testing kids at 16 at all,

given that everybody now

stays until 18.

And I worry that we

are just creating...

Luckily we have abolished AS-levels

which means at least you don't

have yet another series of tests.

But what we need are

children who are really

curious about the world.

We need children who can

actually apply their skills.

And I have to say, I do

believe in testing, I do

believe it's important.

But I don't think we are catering

for children with dyslexia,

for children with a whole series

of challenges who are not

particularly good

at short-term memory.

There are many, many other skills

that we are going to need if Britain

is going to compete in the world.

And what about the stress and mental

health as a price that is paid

for this testing regime?

We are seeing an awful lot of that.

An increasing amount of that?

I think the onus is partly

on schools to, as much as possible,

try and reduce the stress.

I think some children at a very

early age are picking up

stress from their teachers

and from the whole environment,

and I think that is a major problem.

The woman up there on the end.

I've got three granddaughters aged

from seven up,

and they love nothing more

than to have a test.

And I think when they are little

and they are being given tests,

that's fun, and like the lady

said, the stress can

come from the teachers.

And if the teachers aren't stressed,

the children aren't stressed.

The SATs was explained as a special

test, and it was something

to be excited about.

OK, you, sir, in the front.

There are a lot of people

with their hands up.

Yes, you.

At my university...

Someone said their kids

really enjoy testing.

The majority don't.

At my university there is a real

emphasis being placed upon getting

kids to engage in schools

through learning through sport.

So rather than sat down

in the classroom learning

their times tables they are actually

out applying skills through PE,

physical education, which has been

proved to work across Hampshire

on a large scale.

I think it should be rolled out

across more counties across the UK.

Faiza Shaheen, do you think

there is a rising problem of mental

stress among children

because of exams?

Is not a matter of thinking.

It's a fact, isn't it?

It's just there.

We need to listen more to teachers.

And this is what's happened

in the last eight years

since we've had Conservative-led

governments as well, that we have

cut and cut and cut.

Teachers themselves are under

huge amounts of stress.

You don't have teaching

assistants any more.

There's a lot more to do,

with the testing as well.

We need to listen to you about your

own stresses as well as what's

going on with the children

and the kids in your class.

We already assess our children.

I think it's frankly insulting

to have to bring in a test to do

a job that we are already

capable of doing.

Trust the professionals.

We do know what we're doing.

APPLAUSE

And we hear about mental

health all of the time,

from Theresa May talking

about investment in mental health.

When I go out and talk to youth

services, to people working

in mental health with young people,

it is cut.

The truth of the matter

on the ground is very

different to what we hear

from government ministers.

APPLAUSE

Richard Walker, you must see

lots of people coming out

of the education system

to work for you.

What is your impression of the way

that they are being taught

and the pressures they are under?

Well, I'm no educational expert

but I am a dad to two young girls.

And obviously I want them to be

the best they can be and do whatever

they want to do in life.

But I'm already worried

about the amount of homework

they have and the amount

of tests they have.

My wife used to work in Norway

and I think kids start school

there aged six or seven.

And it seems a lot more

of a relaxed introduction.

But to David's point,

in terms of what we see,

I think in terms of targets a lot

of school leavers think that

maybe higher education,

university, is the only

option available to them.

But skills for life was a great

phrase, because we need to be

looking at a broad sweep of options,

from vocational training

to the apprenticeship

levy which is coming,

which is fantastic.

We sponsor school leavers, pay them

a graduate equivalent salary,

but they are 18 and

they can train with us.

APPLAUSE

Let's come to the testing.

The woman on the right.

I think a lot of the mental stress

is caused by the desire

of parents and the children

themselves to succeed.

But I think a lesson

in life is if you fail,

you then try again harder

the next time.

So I don't think these children

should be under undue

pressure the whole time.

Being a failure is also

a lesson in life.

And the woman on the right.

You said that your government

was committed to providing

more support for mental

health in schools.

I am a teacher and I'm wondering

when that's going to come through,

because as a tutor I have students

come to me with mental health issues

pretty much every day.

And there is no support

that we can access as teachers.

We are having to be counsellors

as well as teachers.

What do you do when

somebody comes to you?

Are you a teacher of young people?

I teach A-levels at a college.

What do you do when

people come to you?

I support them as best as I can

and I refer them to what services

are available in our college.

But more often than not it can take

weeks for them to get

in with a counsellor.

And when you are 16,

that's too long.

They need help then and there.

Do you attribute this

to the testing in schools?

Yes.

There's a huge amount of pressure

put on young people to get

the grades they need at A-level,

to get into university.

And it's this constant,

"You need to do this

"to get to the next step".

What's the end for them?

David Lammy.

Well, I think the question is,

why has the government suddenly

decided that we need another

round of tests for eight-year-olds,

that that is the priority?

I just don't think

that's the priority.

The priority, if we are going to

exit the European Union, is skills.

So bring back night

schools in this country.

The priority is invest in youth

services in this country.

The priority is, why have

we cut FE budgets by 50%?

Are any open in the evening,

so people can skill up?

Those are the priorities,

not testing eight-year-olds.

And yes, it's so sad that we're

walking down the road,

like the Americans, we are seeing

more self-harm of youngsters,

really young kids.

Our teachers are stressed out

and leaving the profession.

And if you have a child

with a mental health problem,

or a learning disability,

or one of those issues,

you try getting a speech therapist.

You try ringing up child and

adolescent mental health services.

Impossible to get

on the waiting list.

You are waiting for years

basically just to get seen.

That's the context.

APPLAUSE

Under Conservative-led governments

there are 1.9 million more children

studying in good or

outstanding schools.

We are seeing stronger

exam standards and also,

for the very first time

in the history of the NHS,

we are introducing waiting time

targets for mental health care.

We are investing record amounts,

more than ever before,

in mental health care,

with a strong focus

on young people in schools.

So we are focused on this problem,

and I also want to emphasise...

I agree very strongly,

the apprenticeship levy

is a revolutionary instrument

of social justice in education.

It's going to mean many millions

more young people getting a real

effective start in life.

So I don't accept Faiza's

characterisation of schools

under this government.

There have been

significant improvements.

What do you say to the point

David Lammy was making about people

who need psychological support

and can't get it, people who need

speech therapy and can't get it,

the long delays that the teacher

was talking about and everybody

knows about, before these

young people get help?

Of course we want young people

to get help as quickly as possible

of course you want them to,

but he is saying you haven't

done anything about it.

But that is why we are investing far

more in talking therapies

than the government

of which he was a member ever did.

Yes, it takes a while to get

to those therapies but that is why

we've introduced these

waiting time targets.

Something that no Labour

government has ever done.

The person up there at

the back on the gangway.

Nothing's going to change the fact

that some people are academic

and some people aren't.

More and more tests isn't

going to make people

brighter or more academic.

Shouldn't children be allowed to be

children, and maybe that

would help their mental health?

What do you mean by children?

More and more, they seem to be given

tests and tests and they have

to meet these targets

and those targets.

Why not let them be children?

The academic ones will do it anyway

and not testing will give

the teachers more time to teach.

A lot of people with their hands up.

Let's go to the very back.

I'm a teacher as well and absolutely

agree with a lot of what's been

said.

I believe one of the arguments

is that, from the government, is

that the 8-9 -year-old

multiplication tables test will tell

teachers whether children need help.

I can assure you all the teachers

I've worked with absolutely know

without putting children through

additional testing where they need

help.

The problem is getting that help.

OK.

Yes, you.

What I would like to say

is that all children are

individuals, they're all different.

They develop at different rates.

They learn in different ways.

The idea that you're

supposed to get them

to meet certain targets

is

going to put a lot

of pressure on them

at a very young age,

which is

not fair on the children.

To learn at such a young

age the pressures of

trying to fix themselves

into a certain box.

I'll take one more point.

My point was really to do

with the south-west.

The recent social mobility

commission report

showed West Somerset

was one of the least

socially mobile areas

in the

country and part of

that is the education.

What's the government going to do

about that in terms of rural

schools?

Do you want to answer that?

And then we must move on.

I believe that in terms

of social mobility a

good education is absolutely

crucial, that's why we've been

focusing on exam standards.

That's also why we

want to revolutionise

technical education

with the introduction

of T-levels and also,

as I said, give many more young

people access to apprenticeships

to give them the skills they need to

get the jobs they want.

OK.

In rural areas.

Why is that, what's going to be done

about it, what resources are

going to go into it to change that?

Well the apprenticeship level will

put, you know, far greater funds

into skills training

than ever before.

It's nonsense, it's just not...

Look, in the south-west FE

budgets are being cut.

Money is not rising in schools.

Children's centres

are being shut down.

She's not, I'm afraid

she's just got it

wrong, it's not happening

on the ground, it just isn't.

It's good, I mean, I agree.

You agree.

We'll move on.

We're going to a question

because of where we're sitting.

It was likely to come up.

I'm sure some of you were

directly involved in it.

Let's have the question

from Christopher Parker please.

Can we afford to further

erode the Armed

Forces, for instant potential cuts

to the helicopter fleet that is

produced and operated within Yeovil?

Just tell us about what's

operated in Yeovil.

For instance, here at the base we've

got the Merlin and the

new Wildcat.

Both produced at the Leonardo

factory in Yeovil.

And you're threatened with cuts?

The force that I am on, the Wildcat,

there's been rumours, the Wildcat

fleet being halved to fill,

you know, to cover the cost of the

amphibious fleet.

OK.

Camilla Cavendish.

I guess the Conservative

government did raise the armed

services budget to 2%

of GDP, which I thought

was really important.

And it gave a really

important signal to

Nato that we are in there

and we are behind them

and we are fulfilling our

global responsibilities.

And I think it's really particularly

important as we move towards leaving

the EU that we continue to play that

card, because it's one of our

strongest suits, actually,

with some of our EU

partners and also with

the

United States.

And I, as I understand

it, the government has

committed to that,

to keep that target.

Clearly, because the pound has

fallen in value so much because

of Brexit compared to the dollar

there is a real issue now about the

purchase of equipment the armed

services is supposed to be making,

and the pressures on the budget.

And I don't know the

detail of that, but

there was definitely going to be

some questions about that.

Wasn't the budget cut

between 2010-2015 by

about nearly 20%,

the defence budget?

I don't know how much there

were some cuts made, but in 2015

obviously the government

committed to 2% of GDP.

And you are happy with that?

Yeah, I thought that was

a really important signal.

And I think the question

now is how are they

going to respond to those cost

pressures that are coming, really,

from the pound against the dollar.

I suppose the one

thing I would say is

we need to make sure we're not going

to have a defence review by stealth.